[Bug 612581] Review Request: spacewalk-backend - Common programs needed to be installed on the Spacewalk servers/proxies

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Aug 5 13:01:10 UTC 2010


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612581

--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-08-05 09:01:09 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> SPEC:
> http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-backend/spacewalk-backend.spec
> SRPM:
> http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-backend/spacewalk-backend-1.1.29-2.el6.src.rpm
>
> Description:
> Generic program files needed by the Spacewalk server machines.
> This package includes the common code required by all servers/proxies.
>
> Scratch build:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2305031
>
> Beware of a lot rpmlint warnings. I'm going to explain them:
>
> spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/rhn
> it is just directory, all files and logrotate scripts are handled by
> subpackages

No problem

> spelling-error
> all are false negatives

OK

> conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/*
> we track them as config files, but want them to be replaced during upgrade, no
> customization should be placed in these files
>
> non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/*
> they are not config files, but rather templates for customizing
> /etc/rhn/rhn.conf for more details see BZ 523631

Then I believe these files should go into %{_datadir} not
%{_sysconfdir}. FHS seems to agree with me: "The /usr/share hierarchy
is for all read-only architecture independent data files." Other
packages are using similar scheme, when example configs are stored in
/usr/share and actual configuration in /etc. But as you said on IRC this has to
be fixed upstream.

> explicit-lib-dependency python-hashlib
> explicit-lib-dependency spacewalk-backend-xml-export-libs
> false negatives cause by lib suffix of required packages

No problem


On to the official review...

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.



More information about the package-review mailing list